"The DOMA ruling has now made the normalisation of polygamy, paedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable," - American Family Association

What I think: none of that is likely.What I know: stupidity is directly correlated with association to the AFA

Your post is a bit misleading as this quote is directly attributed to one person who is part of the American Family Association. He may have been speaking for himself since he did post this on his twitter account.

That being said, other members of the AFA said other ridiculous things...

I am wondering what would be the legal justification for not recognizing polygamist marriages? In my opinion I think judges are becoming more activist and could see this happening. I don't think it will be tomorrow. Marriage has been redefined. I can see this as a logical progression.

I am not saying that it will definitely happen. I have been wrong so often that it has become a habit. : )

Gays get jobs, just like everyone else. They can eat, shop and hang out anywhere, just like everyone else. And if they aren't allowed to do so, there are civil rights laws that help address those concerns, especially of the hate crime variety, which is most critical.

I think some domestic partner rights can definitely be enhanced, such as when their partner is in the hospital, etc. This is one of the biggest reasons for arguing for gay marriage but there are other ways to solve it besides marriage, such as civil unions.

At the end of the day, I think it is a state issue, which is essentially what the Supreme Court established.

Gays get jobs, just like everyone else. They can eat, shop and hang out anywhere, just like everyone else.

They just can't get married, just like everyone else.

Rich wrote:

And if they aren't allowed to do so, there are civil rights laws that help address those concerns, especially of the hate crime variety, which is most critical.

Which is a funny point, as I don't believe in the idea of hate crimes.

Rich wrote:

I think some domestic partner rights can definitely be enhanced, such as when their partner is in the hospital, etc. This is one of the biggest reasons for arguing for gay marriage but there are other ways to solve it besides marriage, such as civil unions.

"Separate But Equal" has been proven to not work, particularly where there are singnificant groups of people that are actively looking to discriminate.

Rich wrote:

At the end of the day, I think it is a state issue, which is essentially what the Supreme Court established.

The Supreme Court basically side stepped the issue, not affirmed it.

Marriage in every other instance is respected from state to state. For gay marriage, some states have made illegal to recognize in any way. Someone travelling through North Carolina loses all their marriage privileges. This makes no sense and I can see a Supreme Court overturning of those laws and probably state control of the issue because of it.

If The federal government can force private businesses to serve customers because of interstate commerce, they can force states to recognize legal marriages. This divergence in the definition of what is a marriage is a serious issue for the continuity of laws in the US

The front of the bus is designated for white passengers Women are not allowed to vote Neither are blacks Native Americans are not US citizens

Sorry, maybe it is my perception of marriage not being as big an issue as these, but I think this is a poor comparison.

The right to visit your dying family member in the hospital, the inheritance tax benefits and overall the right to be recognized as equal in marriage isn't as big a deal as where you can ride on a bus or eat in a restaurant?

Oh yeah, I had a "traditional Webster", I forgot to look up the new Webster with the progressive definitions. Hey, I respect your opinion on the issue degs.

Appreciate that. And I'm happy to have a discussion.But regardless of what version of Webster, I don't think laws and rights should be based upon what the editorial staff at websters thinks. Nor should they be based upon the bible.

They should be based upon rights set forth in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The right to visit your dying family member in the hospital, the inheritance tax benefits and overall the right to be recognized as equal in marriage isn't as big a deal as where you can ride on a bus or eat in a restaurant?

Civil unions would allow for this just as much as marriage, so I don't find it necessary to intertwine the two.

My point is that two people choosing to make vows to each other under law is not comparable to an entire race or gender being allowed to cast their vote to decide the future of the society they live in.

They could just as well make these vows in private... why does the state need for them to recognize it?

The debate about gay marriage is more symbolic than functional. The debates about gender and racial rights were not.

Marriage in every other instance is respected from state to state. For gay marriage, some states have made illegal to recognize in any way. Someone travelling through North Carolina loses all their marriage privileges. This makes no sense and I can see a Supreme Court overturning of those laws and probably state control of the issue because of it.

If The federal government can force private businesses to serve customers because of interstate commerce, they can force states to recognize legal marriages. This divergence in the definition of what is a marriage is a serious issue for the continuity of laws in the US

Didn't the repeal of DOMA basically say that if you are married in MA but travelling through NC the state of NC has to recognize your marriage in terms of hospital visitation, etc.?

Its up to the states individually to decide whether people can be married and live as a married couple in that state. It doesn't undo another state's recognized marriage for the 6 hours a gay couple spends driving through. Could be wrong but that is what I read about the ruling.

This is where states' rights becomes an important point of the debate. California voted overwhelmingly to not have gay marriage. Other states have done the same. While I have no issue with gay marriage I get more concerned when a minority group has more say than the democratic process.

Think of the dry town example. I can't walk into a dry town and demand someone serve me a beer just like they are doing in a neighboring town. I'm being denied "equality" because the majority of the town prefers a certain style of living...non-public drinking. I have a choice - accept their rules or go somewhere else to find a drink. There are always other options.

Maybe some day there will be universal acceptance of gay marriage. Until such a day I think the logical solution is to allow citizens of each state to determine their own rules.

You mentioned the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Do not forget that many of the architects, Jefferson notably, favored emphasis on state power over a grand federal power. It allows for a choice to live amongst others who share your preferences.

My opinion on gay rights is that it is a civil rights issue. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that "all men are created equal." Not just straight people.

We threw those papers out a long time ago. However, the "all men are created equal" does not work. We are all still in the same loop. I cannot marry a man either, so in saying that we are both still equal.

They want special rights just for them.

degs wrote:

Incest is another story. There are reasons why that is not allowed. It is far more than someone doesn't "like" or "condone" the lifestyle.

Its more of a ick factor. Kids? Right? Where is the proof on this? Fathers have impregnated their daughters since the dawn of time & still happening today. Are those kids deformed? mentally challenged? However, lets just say one of them cannot have kids or gets fixed in order to prevent kids. Any difference then? Two adults not hurting anyone.